Standing Committee F

[Mr. Bowen Wells in the Chair]

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Clause 3 - Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons

Amendment proposed [23 January]: No. 42, in page 2, line 15, at the beginning to insert the words— 
 `(A1) The Commissioner may make appropriate representations about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.—[Mr. Livsey.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bowen Wells: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 15, at beginning insert—
 `(A1) The Commissioner may make appropriate representations to the National Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.

Nigel Evans: May I be the first to welcome you to the Chair of this Committee, Mr. Wells? I know that you will act with diligence and effectiveness in ensuring that we make as much progress as possible.
 I suspect that, had Conservative Members been approached by the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), we might have considered adding our names to amendment No. 46. It is a shame that the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) are not here because amendment No. 42 clearly goes much wider than amendment No. 46. 
 It is clear that under amendment No. 42 that the Children's Commissioner will be able to say anything about anything. I have made it clear in previous sittings that I would not wish to see the commissioner handcuffed, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) raised the possibility of there being confusion about whether the commissioner would be able, willy-nilly, to make pronouncements about family lifestyles. We do not refer to abuse that takes place in the home. I have no statistics on it, but I imagine that a substantial amount of the child abuse that occurs takes place within the home, so it would be right for the Children's Commissioner to make suggestions on how to tackle it. However, he will have enough work on his plate without becoming involved in the detail of how people normally live their lives. I have some reservations about that, but, because of my belief that the Children's Commissioner should be involved in non-devolved areas, I am not certain whether amendment No. 46 would be sufficient.

Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in introducing amendment No. 46 last Tuesday afternoon, I was at great pains to say that the difference between the two amendments was that, technically, it operated within the Government of Wales Act 1998, whereby representations would be made to the Assembly, but that it did not constrain the Commissioner from making appropriate representations when he felt that children's rights and welfare needed to be defended or promoted. I do not see that amendment No. 46 would constrain him to only devolved matters; it is simply a technical means to keep him within the devolution settlement.

Nigel Evans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, which is also mine, is the right one, but I have been here long enough to know that what is intended in legislation is not always achieved in practice. We look to the Minister for reassurance. I admit that I did not exactly remember that, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since Tuesday. We have even had a mini Government reshuffle, so goodness knows what may happen between today and our next sitting. We look forward to the next exciting instalment.
 If that is the case, I am happy to accept amendment No. 46, because the non-devolved areas are important. Having a body to which to report is important. We know from the Government of Wales Act 1998 that the Assembly can consider anything that affects Wales, whether devolved or not. That is right and as it should be. 
 There are a couple of areas that are non-devolved on which the Children's Commissioner might wish to comment, and amendment No. 46 would allow him to do so. One is the Child Support Agency, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset on Tuesday. I suspect that the legislation establishing the Child Support Agency will not go down in history as the best ever enacted. In its general thrust and ethos it had the support of both sides of the House, but I suspect that a fair whack of most hon. Members' surgery cases will concern the CSA. Some are complete horror stories. It is not simply a case of whether the mother or father has been disadvantaged by the CSA—I have had a fair whack of both—but that the child may become the victim. 
 The CSA has resulted in a bureaucratic nightmare, and I am sure that in Wales as in England some cases have taken months to be dealt with properly, and, even if they are dealt with properly, whoever pays the child support may find that he or she has had a bundle of paperwork from the CSA and in virtually every letter the amount of money requested from the parent has differed, so that there has been no stability. 
 Then there is the angst, which is something that the Children's Commissioner might want to consider, felt by the parent who, because of the considerable amount that he or she is required to pay by the CSA, feels that he or she does not then have enough money to be able to give to the child personally. That parent may want to take the child out for a treat, but, because of the amount of money already paid—I am avoiding referring only to one parent because either might be involved—cannot do so, and, as a result, feels deficient as a parent. 
 The problem is not simply one of bureaucracy or inefficiency, or that people have to speak to somebody different each time they telephone, who has to acquaint himself with all the paperwork involved in that child's case, but that there is no continuity for the parent. The Children's Commissioner might want to consider the whole aspect of how the CSA is working and to make recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales. Under amendment No. 46, Peter Clarke would be able to do so. 
 If several parents wrote to the Children's Commissioner about cases similar to those to which I have referred, he might want to get involved in the Child Support Agency. Would he be within his rights either to investigate single cases of how people were treated or to consider in general how the agency worked and impacted on children in Wales? Would he be able to make recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, and would the Assembly be within its rights to make its own recommendations under the Government of Wales Act, as it did on the position of Children's Commissioner itself? I assume that Ministers and the Assembly would then negotiate over any legislation that might be introduced to help to solve the problems mentioned in the commissioner's report. 
 The commissioner would need financial support if he became involved in the Child Support Agency, because the funding mentioned would be totally deficient. The area is a hornets' nest, and when he solves one problem many others will emerge. If the commissioner makes recommendations in relation to the agency in Wales, cross-border problems will also emerge, so we should sort out the English aspects of the legislation at the same time. 
 A child whose parents live separately in England and Wales may flit back and forth—hence the need for the word ``ordinarily'' in the amendment, as we discussed earlier. Someone will have to adjudicate on whether agency legislation differs between Wales and England—which could easily be the case, as we have already debated legislation that differs in that way. We have been told, simply, that such differences are a good thing and what devolution is all about, because Wales and England can do what they like. However, that may have an impact on clients, customers, taxpayers and British citizens. One can imagine that there might be problems in cases such as I have described, where parents live separately in England and Wales. Who would adjudicate in such a case? Which rules would govern—those for Wales or those for England? 
 Another non-devolved area is home affairs. What will be the position of the commissioner in relation to children in youth detention? He may be barred from discussing anyone within the court system, but I assume that he is not barred from commenting on how the court system operates—not on individual cases, but on how it treats children generally. For example, a 17-year-old with a car living in a border area may have committed crimes in England and Wales. If the Children's Commissioner made recommendations for changes in the way in which children were treated in Wales, the court system might change and the law might be different in England; in such a situation, someone would have to adjudicate. Children are presumably treated differently from adults in courts—I suspect that there are already differences. 
 What would the consequences be for those non-devolved matters if amendment No. 46 were adopted? In the light of what the Minister says, the hon. Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North may want to comment, and we shall then decide on our approach.

Julie Morgan: Amendment No. 46 should settle some of the concerns voiced in the Committee and by the children's charities that have lobbied so hard for the Bill. The key aspect of the commissioner's role is his independence and his ability to respond to issues brought to him by young people. We do not want a commissioner who is fettered in any way. His ability to comment is important. Hon. Members may have underplayed that power in earlier sittings, but I feel strongly that someone in that position may have a great effect by commenting on issues in public. That ability to comment should not be underestimated, but it is not enough.
 Amendment No. 46 would give the commissioner the power to make representations to the Assembly about any matter of importance to children in Wales. It would also provide a means of giving structure to those representations, dealing with any concerns about the commissioner approaching Whitehall Departments, for example, which could prove unwieldy. Giving him the ability to channel his views through the Assembly might provide an answer to those problems, and fits in with the devolution settlement. 
 I am enthusiastic about amendment No. 46, because the children's charities that have worked so hard for the Bill feel that there will be real problems if a line of communication does not exist for the representations made by the commissioner. People may be worried that the amendment might create another layer of bureaucracy, but I believe that it gives a structure to the commissioner's representations. 
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to the Child Support Agency, which I thought was an excellent example. The way in which he described the agency's operations, how they would affect the child and be of concern to the commissioner, provided a good illustration of the issues that we are discussing. We want the commissioner to consider wide-ranging issues, including poverty, that affect children. The way in which the agency operates impinges on children's poverty, as does the benefits system. If the amendment were adopted, would it be possible for the commissioner to propose changes to the benefits system to the Assembly, which would have means to make representations?A structure such as proposed in our amendment would get to grips with some of the concerns that exist about the post of commissioner. 
 On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Minister said that the commissioner could comment on non-devolved matters to the Assembly, which could make representations to the Government. Given what the Minister has said, we seem already to be part of the way to agreeing to amendment No. 46. However, we want to take a further step and refer to making ``appropriate representations'' rather than to making comments. How would the Minister envisage the Assembly dealing with those appropriate representations? 
 My hon. Friend the Minister has on three or four occasions referred to the post as the creation of the children's champion. That gives me great pleasure because it is how we have always seen the post. If we could agree to amendment No. 46, we might satisfy a lot of those who have raised concerns. Therefore, I am interested in hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response to that amendment, which would fit in well with section 33 of the Government of Wales Act and might provide a way forward.

David Hanson: I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Wells. We had useful sittings on Tuesday with your co-Chairman, Mr. Barry Jones. I am sure that you will enjoy any future sittings that you may chair.
 I am sorry that the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy are not here this morning, because the debate straddles two sittings. When we began the debate on Tuesday, both hon. Gentlemen made comments to which I hope to respond. I hope that they will read the record and examine the points that I make in my response. 
 The debate has been useful, and I welcome the constructive way in which Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North have approached the discussion. As I said on Tuesday, the Government are entirely sympathetic to the amendments' objectives and to making the commissioner the champion of children's rights in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North made some significant points in welcoming that role. 
 The Government, in their principal aim for the Children's Commissioner in exercising his functions, put at the heart of the role the safeguarding, promotion and welfare of children's rights. In earlier sittings under the chairmanship of Mr. Jones, we dealt with the reasons why the Government consider it appropriate for the commissioner's statutory role to relate to devolved functions alone. 
 It is worth clarifying the range of areas for which the commissioner and Assembly will have responsibility. I want to put into context the role and responsibilities of the commissioner, and to describe the core functions that the Bill confers on him. The Bill, in amending the Care Standards Act 2000, confers wide-ranging subjects on the commissioner for which he has a responsibility within devolved areas. They include agriculture, ancient monuments, cultural policy, economic development, education and training, environment and health, highways issues, housing, industry, local government, social services, sport and recreation, tourism, town and country planning, transport, water and flood defence and language issues. All those subjects fall within the competence of the Children's Commissioner, as stated in the Bill. 
 My hon. Friend and Opposition Members want the amendments to extend that formal responsibility into non-devolved areas. However, citing the breadth of the devolved functions re-emphasises the significance of the extended scope that the commissioner will have. We are in danger of forgetting how extensive and radical are the proposals contained in the Bill. 
 The commissioner's scope will cover the key bodies and individuals providing universal services, such as health and education, to children in Wales. His scope will go beyond those areas, covering housing, transport and environmental matters, all of which are important to the vast majority of children in Wales. The Bill's provisions do not simply tinker with the commissioner's functions under the Care Standards Act 2000, but extend them significantly. I categorically confirm that the commissioner will be able to act as a champion for children in Wales. He will also be able to make representations to Government and the Assembly outside of that substantive role, and make comments on an informal basis. I believe that that reflects the spirit of the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North. 
 I am sorry that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not present because he asked me a question. I do not intend to reject the amendments in the broader sense, but I shall ask my colleagues in due course to withdraw them. However, if I were to reject the amendments, why would I undertake that? What is the substantive difference? Were he here, I would say to the hon. Gentleman—and I say to hon. Members who are here—that I ask them to withdraw the amendments simply because I believe that we must define the role of the Children's Commissioner. 
 The commissioner should concentrate his activities on the substantive functions and be judicious about the way in which he operates outside his statutory role. There is a range of issues, and the biggest issues facing the commissioner will be those relating to health, education and social service functions, which he will have powers to deal with. Within that operation, however, he needs to concentrate. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley touched on it briefly, whether intentionally or not, in relation to the budget that the Children's Commissioner will have. He will have a budget currently of approximately £800,000 in the financial year in which he takes up his post. He has to allocate his resources accordingly. 
 The commissioner may make representations to Government about a whole range of informal issues—about Home Office and Benefits Agency matters. He can make informal comments, but his statutory backing under the Bill is to undertake activities that are his core functions. His core functions, under the Bill, are those that relate to the Assembly, and his resources should automatically follow them. That is not to debar or gag him from making comments about Home Office or Benefits Agency matters informally to the Assembly or to Government Departments. The Bill seeks to give a definition of the role, which is in the areas for which the Assembly is responsible. As I mentioned on Tuesday, it is the Assembly that has created this creature, the Children's Commissioner, and therefore he will operate within that sphere of influence.

Nigel Evans: I welcome what the Minister is saying to clarify the point. However, although £800,000 is a large sum of money, with a team of staff I suspect that it will be whittled away very quickly. Is he saying that because of the limitation on the budget as it stands he suspects that the Children's Commissioner will have to concentrate on the core areas, at the expense of looking at some of the non-devolved areas, because he simply will not be able to afford to do so?

David Hanson: No. I am saying that the budget this financial year is £800,000, but if we doubled, tripled or quadrupled it—whatever the budget was—the definition of the commissioner's role under the Bill is that that budget is to be spent primarily on those core functions. Therefore, the non-core functions, which are the responsibility of the British Government, are issues on which he can pass informal comments to the Government directly and to the Assembly, but he has no core function to deal with them because there are mechanisms elsewhere for dealing with them.

Ruth Kelly: Would the commissioner be able to include those informal matters on which he might wish to comment in the annual report? Would he be able to take evidence on them?

David Hanson: I believe that he will be able to include them in the annual report. Taking evidence formalises in a sense the representations that are being made. It will involve him in expenditure, which again is part of the definition of the core functions. Our present discussions may help my hon. Friend.
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about the Child Support Agency, which is an important issue giving rise to a number of significant concerns. I do not believe it is appropriate, and the commissioner could not, under the Bill, investigate individual cases involving the Child Support Agency. Nor could he produce a report on the impact of the Child Support Agency in Wales. However, if in the course of his duties he learned of a range of issues that raised concerns about the CSA, he could include a comment in his annual report to that effect, or raise it with the Assembly Minister Jane Hutt, who could make representations to the British Government. Alternatively, he could feed informally to the Child Support Agency a range of issues that had come through. There is a difference between saying that the Children's Commissioner is responsible for the Child Support Agency and that the Children's Commissioner may raise informally any concerns that he may have about it. There is a subtle but real difference in the process that he will follow. 
 On the potential role of the Children's Commissioner with regard to the Child Support Agency, there is a mechanism of regulation and control, which is the Department of Social Security. There are Ministers and the Secretary of State is my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is directly responsible for such matters. He is accountable to this House, which can raise those issues with him. [Interruption.] 
 I welcome the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to the Committee. It is a pleasure to see him here. I have covered some points and I hope that we can continue to discuss them in due course.

Richard Livsey: I apologise for my late arrival. I thought it was a 10 o'clock start.

David Hanson: I appreciate the difficulty and assure the hon. Gentleman that he is welcome. Where was I, Mr Wells? This is a typical Liberal Democrat trick to throw Ministers off course just as they are in full flow, distract them from the key points and confuse them. It is clearly a tactic to ensure that when Hansard records what we have said I am shown to be confused and disorientated.
 I say again that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Central, the Secretary of State, is accountable to this House for the Child Support Agency, and the commissioner's role would not be to investigate individual cases. We do not want to duplicate existing mechanisms of regulation and investigation of such matters. 
 The hon. Members for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and Ribble Valley both expressed concern about the potential for the commissioner to become involved in family life and whether the amendments before us would give the commissioner responsibilities to take forward comments on family life. They would have to be looked at in the light of non-statutory content. That relates also to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend about poverty issues. I very much hope that if he feels it important to do so the commissioner will raise questions relating to his concerns about wider issues in Wales that affect children. Again, I come back to the fact that there is a statutory context and that he has firm core responsibilities on which he must focus. 
 The commissioner may wish to comment informally on aspects of family life, but that will not be the focus of his activities. I do not believe that any involvement he has would constitute meddling in family life, as has been suggested. Indeed, I know that the Conservative party in the Assembly agrees with that approach.

Julie Morgan: How will the commissioner operate when giving his views about domestic violence issues, which have an enormous impact on children in families and are linked to local authorities providing hostels and working to combat domestic violence? That is an area of family life that causes enormous distress to children. Does my hon. Friend have any views on how that would be tackled?

David Hanson: I recognise that domestic violence issues impact strongly upon children, and the provision of a secure family life free from violence is one of the great benchmarks that will help children develop positively. Within the statutory services for which the Assembly has responsibility, such as social services inspectorates and other issues relating to social services and local authority provision, the Assembly will be involved in funding a number of bodies potentially to deal with domestic violence issues. The commissioner will have a locus within those areas. He may wish to make informal comments about policy development to the Assembly because, if I am not mistaken, the Assembly is involved in undertaking certain funding to organisations that deal with domestic violence. There is a locus for those particular reasons.
 I bring my hon. Friend back to the point—if the Assembly has a locus in that area, under the Bill the Children's Commissioner will have a definitive locus in that area. If the Assembly does not, the commissioner has the opportunity to make informal comments to the Assembly or directly to the Government. I recognise that I have said this several times, but I return to the point. The Bill defines the core functions that are the prime responsibilities of the commissioner. I hope that is of help. 
 I do not share the pessimism of hon. Members about the likely outcome of the commissioner being able to make representations or comment within the boundaries. I believe that public representations from a figure of the stature of the Children's Commissioner would certainly be listened to, both informally by the Assembly and formally by the Government, because at the end of the day, there is a common interest in helping to promote, protect and develop the rights of children. We must examine the question of the core functions, and I hope that I have shown that the spirit of what is suggested in the amendments is within the scope of what I have tried to say. We must draw a boundary for the commissioner, and that boundary is defined in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment accordingly.

Win Griffiths: In the light of the Minister's comments, I shall not press the matter. Nevertheless, I hope that we might consider adopting a similar form of words at a later stage to take account of the views that were exchanged during the debate.

Richard Livsey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—`or
(c) the exercise or proposed exercise of any primary or secondary legislation in Wales'.

Bowen Wells: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
 `(1A) The Commissioner may also review the effect on children of the failure of the Assembly or any person mentioned in Schedule 2A to exercise any function in relation to Wales.'.

Nigel Evans: Amendments Nos. 10 and 45 are distinct, so I will deal with amendment No. 10 first. Some of my points have already been inferred or stated explicitly in relation to non-devolved areas. In a briefing paper that I received a couple of days ago from Peter Newell, chairman of the Children's Rights Alliance for England, he states that the basic powers of the commissioner
are to monitor, review and report publicly. There is no possible justification for limiting these powers to devolved matters. Allowing the Commissioner to monitor, review and report on all matters which may affect the human rights of children in Wales does not conflict with the devolution settlement. 
I believe that to be true. He refers to section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and suggests that the Children's Commissioner be governed by a similar provision. He then says: 
 It is essential that the Bill is amended in particular to enable the Commissioner to monitor, review and report publicly on any matter which may affect the human rights of children in Wales. The core purpose of the Commissioner should be underlined on the face of the Bill 
—which is what I should like the Minister to refer to in his response to my amendments—linking his powers 
``to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and providing duties to promote respect for the views of children. Petty restrictions on the Commissioner's powers . . . should be removed. 
Part of amendment No. 10 relates to that issue. 
 In essence, one of the core responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner will be to look at secondary legislation as it pertains to the National Assembly for Wales. The Minister related the fact that the Children's Commissioner will have a limited budget of £800,000. There is enormous responsibility on the Children's Commissioner to be effective in Wales—we want that. He may find himself constrained not by the legislation or what he wants to do, but because his budget is limited and he will be restricted within the core powers. If that happens, a substantial number of his interests may not be sufficiently covered. We want part of the core functions of the Children's Commissioner to be to examine the exercise of any primary powers relating to his position. As primary legislation affecting Wales, if that had been contained in the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children's Commissioner would have had to examine the Bill that we are debating today and he would have been able to comment on it. That is the nature of the beast. The devolved settlement in Wales means that all primary legislation affecting Wales comes through Parliament. I applaud and welcome that and would not wish to see it altered in any way. 
 With regard to secondary legislation, the commissioner will miss an awful lot. Our amendment would make the examination of primary legislation affecting Wales part of the commissioner's core responsibilities. There will almost certainly be changes in primary legislation with regard to the Child Support Agency. We are now told that in the annual report the commissioner can refer to the CSA. He cannot look into individual cases—and I was not asking for him to be able to do so—but there may be a number of irregularities shared by family cases in Wales that could be brought to his attention. Parents will, no doubt, write to him. Children may even write to the commissioner about how the CSA impacts on them. There is a general consensus that the Children's Commissioner should talk to children regularly, keep in contact with them and listen to their views. The CSA may well be one matter to be raised. If we are to see primary legislative changes, I hope that the commissioner will be asked for his views on that legislation. He should be shown a draft or consulted if and when a White Paper is published. 
 On education, we know that secondary powers rest with the National Assembly for Wales, but primary changes taking place in Westminster could impact on children in Wales. The Welsh Language Act 1993 is a case in point. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not present, because I am sure that he would want to comment on Welsh language provision. The commissioner may want to comment if changes were made to the Welsh Language Act regarding the rights of children to access all lessons in Welsh or to ensure that more Welsh language teaching is made available in areas more usually described as English, such as Swansea or Monmouth. 
 The commissioner may even wish to comment on a lack of legislation. It may well be that nobody in Westminster proposes changes to the Welsh Language Act, yet the commissioner is in receipt of letters from youngsters who feel disadvantaged. In that case, he may want to criticise the failure of the National Assembly for Wales to make representations to Westminster or comment directly on the lack of legislation from Westminster. A number of issues are involved. I have mentioned village schools and the abolition of grammar schools or the failure to have grammar schools, although I suspect that that is not a burning issue in Wales.

David Hanson: Without touching on that politically charged issue, does the hon. Gentleman see the Children's Commissioner having a role in commenting on politically charged issues, either from the Right or the Left?

Nigel Evans: For the Children's Commissioner to be respected, he has to be careful. He will always walk a tightrope. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and I mentioned the family. If the Children's Commissioner sees himself as a super personality who seeks to comment on highly politically charged issues, he will do no great service to the children of Wales, nor will he enhance his reputation or the position of Children's Commissioner. He has to be careful how he proceeds. He may wish to comment on a number of matters that deal with primary legislation and are not politically charged. I agree with the Minister that the last thing we want is for the Children's Commissioner to be emblazoned, making pronouncements and reports on matters of great party political difference—perhaps even on manifesto commitments of particular parties that have been endorsed by the electorate. That would create problems.
 Sports in school are mentioned time and time again. The commissioner will not have a monopoly of comment on that, but a future Labour Government or, in a few weeks, an incoming Conservative Government may wish to introduce legislation on the sale of school playing fields or to revolutionise the provision of sports in schools. The Children's Commissioner might wish to comment on that. 
 Hon. Members know from their own patch that sports provision in schools—especially in primary schools—varies. In some it is pretty good, in some rural areas it is pretty dismal and the differences in provision in secondary schools can be stark. When I was at Dynevor school in Swansea city centre we had a couple of gyms on site. We did not have a playing field or a swimming pool in Swansea. Every two weeks we had double swimming lessons. The bus had to turn up and take us to Bishop Gore school, which was 15 minutes away. Regularly, the bus did not turn up and we got no swimming lessons. Learning to swim is important for children's safety and I am sure that the Children's Commissioner would want to comment on that.

Julie Morgan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Children's Commissioner would be able to comment on all those matters under the existing remit because local authorities and the Sports Council for Wales are listed in schedule 2A. He would be able to comment on most of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Nigel Evans: I accept that, but I was referring solely to primary legislation and if the Government were to introduce or fail to introduce legislation. That is dealt with in my other amendment and, with your permission, Mr. Wells, I can refer to both, because they interrelate, although they are distinct in other ways. If there were a failure to act, it could be that whole swathes of children were not receiving swimming lessons. Many villages in Wales do not have swimming pools. I cannot remember how that relates to the national lottery. Distribution of lottery funding is doing a great deal for swimming pools, and Wales is getting a fair whack of money for them, but it is how that is being done. If the money is concentrated in a prestige project, that is one thing, but what about villages in West Wales and mid-Wales where there is an incredible lack of provision? It was bad enough when I was in Dynevor, but one can imagine the problems faced in smaller rural areas where there is no provision at all.

Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how national lottery funds are distributed. The new opportunities fund also distributes money to Wales for health and other projects. I hope that the Minister will comment on the way in which that fund is distributed, as it directly affects children in Wales.

Nigel Evans: I welcome those comments. In future, changes may be made in Wales or in Parliament under secondary legislation. If not—if primary legislation were needed to change the way in which lottery funds were distributed—that legislation would naturally come through Parliament.

James Gray: The Conservative party is committed to returning the new opportunities fund to mainstream lottery funding. If primary legislation were made in Parliament to abolish the new opportunities fund and the Children's Commissioner believed that that would damage the interests of children in Wales, would he have any right to comment on that legislation? Without my hon. Friend's amendment, I suggest that he probably would not.

Nigel Evans: I am sure that the Minister will say that the commissioner can comment in an informal manner on anything that impinges on Wales, but that it is not one of his core responsibilities. The commissioner could consider the matter and say, ``Well, there are problems'', and he might include some of his comments in the annual report that it is assumed he will make to the National Assembly for Wales. That is not good enough, however. Our amendment would compel him, as one of his core functions, to consider the primary legislation or the lack of any action taken to promote and look after the rights and welfare of children.

Richard Livsey: I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, especially in relation to the lottery. My constituency covers a huge area and it is difficult to attain swimming pool facilities. Children often have a round trip of 40 miles to get to a swimming pool. In Senny bridge, the swimming pool has deteriorated and been closed down; it specialised in swimming facilities for disabled children and is badly needed. We are struggling for facilities.

Nigel Evans: I fully accept that and, as I know the hon. Gentleman's beautiful constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, I know how difficult things must be in certain areas. He talks about round trips of 40 miles—that is an enormous intrusion into the school day, and pupils must spend more time on the bus than they do in the swimming pool. Although the curriculum dictates that youngsters must spend some time learning how to swim, every summer children die tragically after falling into the local canal, while swimming in the sea, or in whatever way. We know that we will open our newspapers this summer and—if the summer is half-decent—we will read about such tragic deaths.
 We should consider anything that we can do to alleviate that situation, such as through the provision of lottery funding to villages in rural areas that would not commercially attract a swimming pool. The construction of a swimming pool is one thing, but the maintenance and running costs go on and on. A pool is incredibly expensive to maintain. In addition—certainly in my patch, in Lancashire—there was a cut last year in the provision of swimming teachers. Whether through primary or secondary legislation or a decision of the local authority, it was decided—because devolved budgets did not devolve all the money to schools—that schools could not buy the same amount of provision for swimming lessons. They had to sack several swimming tutors, so the youngsters did not get the same number of lessons.

Bowen Wells: Order. The hon. Gentleman's exploration of the subject of swimming pools is undoubtedly interesting, but it is not in order and I would not encourage him to pursue it. We are discussing the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner, but the discussion need not be quite as broad as he is making it.

Nigel Evans: I was talking about primary legislation relating to national lottery funding. If changes in that legislation were necessary in Wales and the United Kingdom generally, the commissioner might want to comment.

Richard Livsey: Investment has brought about an enormous improvement in the well being of children. The demand for facilities is fantastic, but some children are excluded because of a situation relating to a successful investment. That is a big issue.

Nigel Evans: I accept that. Enough said on swimming.
 I move briefly on to race relations. Again, it is a disappointment that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not here, because he could have apologised again for the comments made by Simon Glyn, who I note is still a councillor and chairman of housing in Gwynedd. Yesterday I signed the early-day motion condemning his remarks relating to discrimination, which was drafted by Labour Members. 
 If amendments were planned to the Race Relations Act 1976, especially given some of the problems that we face in Wales with the nationalists, the Children's Commissioner might want to comment on the impact of the legislation on children of English parents—or any other parents, although they are more likely to be English than anything else. 
 We have discussed the issue of health, from several angles. It is devolved, in the main, but there may be changes in primary legislation if there is a change of Government. The commissioner may want to comment on that. 
 Home Affairs is non-devolved. We referred on Tuesday to children's curfews. We all accept that most children are diligent, law-abiding citizens who do not want to cause any trouble. Children can be children—we all know that—but the last thing that we should want to do is penalise everyone simply because they were under the age of 18. Given some of the legislation that is being proposed, some children might think that they are being unfairly discriminated against. They are all being pooled together because of the actions of a small group, who could be targeted, taken away and penalised properly. 
 Did the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children not come up with the line, ``Looking at a child, what he needs is a good listening to''? That was an effective advertising campaign. However, some children do not respond to being listened to because they are simply unruly. Some parents have no control over their children and themselves go to the police and social services, asking for help. 
 Widespread legislation on curfews that dictate that anybody under a certain age cannot go out at night would have an impact on several organisations, such as the brownies, the guides, the scouts, the cubs, as well as boys' bands and youth groups generally. Some of those groups might take place after the curfew time.

Julie Morgan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no plan for curfews to prevent such activities. If in an area a curfew is in operation and young people are out for legitimate reasons, the police would either allow them to continue or take them home. There is no intention to stop children from taking part in activities that we all welcome.

Nigel Evans: I am reassured by those comments because the youth organisations to which I referred have done an enormous amount of good work, and a lot of people involved are volunteers and it costs them money. There were guides in the House yesterday and some of us took the opportunity to speak to them. In fact, I spoke to one of the commissioners from Wales, who spoke to me about the fee that must be paid. It may be £11.75—I am not sure whether it has been set yet, but I think that it is £10 plus VAT. That is the fee for police checks on people working with children. That does not pertain in Scotland, where people have already said that they would not have it. If the matter were devolved—I understand that it is not a devolved but a Home Office matter—the decision would have to come from us.
 I am sure that no one who has any dealings with children's organisations wants them to be disadvantaged by such a charge. Thousands of people work with children throughout the United Kingdom for national organisations, such as the cubs and guides. If the staff turnover rate were high, such a charge would prove expensive for those organisations. All the youngsters who attend cubs or guides with their 50p or £1 a week will find that a fair amount of that money will go on police checks. Surely that was never meant to be the case. 
 Of course, we welcome the checks and agree that they are essential. However, it is as if a charge has been put on the service simply because it is new. If we dial 999, we expect the police to come out, but we do not expect them to say to us, ``There will be a £50 standing charge'', because they have always done it—it is traditional. If 999 were invented today, it would probably be a premium rate call on an 0850 number at 50p a minute. The situation is absurd and I ask the Minister to consider primary legislation, if that is what is needed. 
 Another politically charged area among those non-devolved areas is the matter of section 28. The Children's Commissioner might receive letters from youngsters who think that section 28 is unfair or want it to be retained. That is the tightrope that he will walk. However, it will take primary legislation to settle it and, as we know, only the other day the House voted to retain section 28.

David Hanson: Is not the hon. Gentleman in a sense arguing against his own amendment? Is it the role and responsibility of the Children's Commissioner to take on that quasi-political lobbying role in relation to such politically charged issues or is it our job as elected politicians and the job of the Assembly?

Nigel Evans: I accept what the Minister has just said. I would say that it was the job of politicians. However, I am recognising the fact that the commissioner can comment on anything that affects children in Wales, and that he may be written to on that subject by a number of people. He would be in a similar position to ourselves: we have received letters, both for and against such matters, in our own constituencies. The commissioner will have to strike a fine balance, listen to what people say and have private talks with Ministers or Assembly members. However, there may be a fine line, and people may say that they do not know whether the commissioner is helping the argument forward.
 The commissioner may also want to comment on the issue of voting at 16, which is a less politically charged issue. When the Representation of the People Bill was being debated last year, we discussed that issue at length. We all had views and the only people who were not consulted were those aged from 16 to 18. I should not call people in that age group children, because I might offend them. Young people of that age may have strong opinions about whether they should have a vote.

Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that, when the Danish Commissioner came to Cardiff and spoke to a large group of people, including young people and children, he talked about his activities in Denmark. One subject on which he consulted with young people via the internet was what they thought the age for voting should be. There was widespread consultation on that and other issues, some very contentious. That was very interesting.

Nigel Evans: I am sure that that will not be restricted. Indeed, the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 by a Conservative Government. I do not know what Denmark decided in the end, but I assume the age for voting is still 18. I hope that the European Union will not become involved in that issue. Primary legislation should be a decision for nation states. There are arguments either way. In fact, when standing for Parliament and local authorities I believe the age is still 21—18 to vote and 21 to stand.
Ms Kelly rose—

Bowen Wells: Order. It is perfectly in order to discuss anything that is related to schedule 2A dealing with the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, but it is not in order to explore the issues involved that might be considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not stimulated an intervention, which would also be out of order.

Nigel Evans: I do not need to transgress that, Mr. Wells. There has been tremendous consensus in the Committee and if the hon. Lady believes that her comments are in order I shall be more than happy to give way.

Ruth Kelly: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be a good idea for a Welsh Children's Commissioner to get involved in United Kingdom legislation which affected all children equally across the UK rather than perhaps to confine his comments—if, indeed, he were to comment on primary legislation—to primary legislation that differentially affected children in Wales, which he could justify as part of his brief as Children's Commissioner for Wales? If there were indeed someone to comment on matters of UK legislation that affected all children equally, surely that should be either a UK commissioner for children or a minister for children?

Nigel Evans: I fully accept that. I will not go down that route, but if we recall the differences between devolved and undevolved areas with eating beef on the bone, at certain stages we could find ourselves with different laws all over the place and that would be difficult. The Children's Commissioner might find it enormously difficult. The children's rights director in England and the Children's Commissioner for Wales might not even agree on certain matters, and that could lead to confusion. MMR vaccinations were mentioned the other day. The Children's Commissioner for Wales might recommend one thing and the children's rights director might say something else, which could lead to enormous confusion. We do not want to see that.
 Following your guidance, Mr Wells, I will not go through each individual issue. I will merely say that any primary legislation that deals with home affairs has an enormous impact, whether it is the age of drinking, driving at 17, the tests that people have to take or whether we have a green `P' on the back of cars for young people in their first year of driving. The Children's Commissioner for Wales may wish to comment. The hon. Member for Bolton, West referred to legislation about things that are distinctly Welsh. It will be well within the commissioner's powers to comment on secondary legislation and informally, I suspect, on primary legislation, but he may not have sufficient funds to be able to do that. 
 My final comment on non-devolved areas may well concern home affairs and the question of where convicted paedophiles go when they are released from prison. We know that this is an incredibly politically charged issue. It is not party political, but people have strong feelings about it. We have seen recent television reports of parents marching for a change in legislation when they believe that undesirable people—people who have been convicted—are being placed in communities where there are many children. Would it not therefore be appropriate at least to consult a Children's Commissioner on what he felt was a common sense move, if primary legislation were to be introduced on that? I suspect that the Children's Commissioner may make recommendations on primary legislation. He may not wish to go running to the press. He may not wish to seek headlines on every aspect of dealing with children. He will have the children's real interests at heart. He may wish, having looked at primary legislation, to make some recommendations and comment, if he is consulted, on these aspects, so that after consulting with the children himself, which we are now obliging him to do, he could make some recommendations. I ask the Minister to look carefully at both amendments No. 10 and No. 45, on the one hand compelling him to look at primary legislation and on the other hand, if there is a failure to bring forward any legislation, to comment on that.

Win Griffiths: I wish to make some comments about amendment No. 10, but also to say a few words about amendment No. 45 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.
 At least half of the provisions in amendment No. 10 are covered by the existing Bill. Under clause 3, new section 72B(1) refers to 
the exercise or proposed exercise by the Assembly of any function, including the making or proposed making of any subordinate legislation. 
The commissioner has the power to review its effect on children. That is what we generally call secondary legislation, so I think that aspect is covered. 
 Then there is primary legislation which is specific to Wales, whether it be a defined Act or Bill, like this particular Bill which is only about Wales, or a Bill, for example, on education which will have in it specific references to the powers of the Assembly to do things. I know that in the past Bills on devolved matters have referred to the power of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment or of the Secretary of State for Wales to do certain things. Therefore, primary legislation of that nature is also covered by existing provisions in the Bill. If we go a step further, as the Minister has already said in other debates, the commissioner will have the power to make comments and appropriate representations. I believe that it would be appropriate to do so through the Assembly which, within the structure of devolved Government, can make sure that those representations are filtered through into the process that covers legislation in this place. 
 Amendment No. 45 is a probing amendment to find out from my Minister exactly how the power of the commissioner might work, given that the commissioner has got wide powers with regard to the safeguard and promotion of the rights and welfare of children as mentioned in clause 2. I should like to probe the Minister on this issue of giving the commissioner the power to review the effect on children of the failure of the Assembly or any person mentioned in schedule 2A to exercise any function in relation to Wales. It is already clear that the right to review and monitor failures in respect of the complaints procedures is included in the Bill, but I wonder whether the failure to exercise the function would be covered by the way in which the Bill is presently constructed. 
 One of the powerful messages of the Waterhouse report is that there were numerous examples of social workers failing to carry out their functions in the appropriate way. There were also issues about whether the Welsh Office failed to carry out its functions in the appropriate way—we all know of the dire consequences for children if that happens. I hope to be reassured by the response to my question about the issues raised in amendment No. 45. I hope that the Minister will say that the commissioner already has the relevant powers in the way that the Bill is constructed. To ensure that there is no doubt about that, I tabled the amendment with the help and support of the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group so that the issue can be aired. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Richard Livsey: This is an interesting debate. I want to look at amendment No. 10, tabled by the Opposition, and the impact of the commissioner in examining primary legislation as it affects Wales. There is a very fine line. There are education Bills in the House—primary legislation—that affect Wales. That is just one example of where specific aspects may impinge upon Wales in a way that it is difficult to unscramble, because the devolution settlement means that the Assembly has powers to deal with only secondary legislation. Given that situation, with which I have some sympathy, there is a strong case for the commissioner having the power to look at some of those specific aspects as they impinge upon Wales. There may be a case for some input from him, specific to Wales, where his views may carry considerable clout in refining the legislation.
 Amendment No. 45, to which my name is attached, was spoken to by the hon. Member for Bridgend. It deals with a particularly important aspect, especially since the hon. Member for Bridgend referred to the Waterhouse inquiry and the comments that were made by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. Amendment No. 45 says: 
 The commissioner may also review the effect on children of the failure of the Assembly or any person mentioned . . . to exercise any function in relation to Wales. 
 As we know, no one is perfect and no organisation is perfect. There is a certain amount of inevitability about failure in all organisations. However, it is obviously our business in Committee to ensure that, where there is failure it can be investigated. We also need to ensure that there will be monitoring of the proper conduct of the legislation in relation to children in Wales. As has been said, the Waterhouse inquiry ``Lost in Care'' made it clear that the failure of social workers and the Welsh Office inspectorate was such that they had to act in dire consequences for the children. It illustrates that the failure to act can be as detrimental to children as the actions of public bodies. Without going too deeply into it, there has been an issue with the former Welsh Office about the background of some people working in the inspectorate. I will say no more than that. The Children's Commissioner should have some input into that highly sensitive area. 
 The right to review and monitor failures in respect of complaints procedures is expressly included in the Bill. Such a right should also be included in relation to the Assembly, and other public bodies, so that the possibility of failure can be starkly investigated with all the facts presented to the commissioner. His independent remit will allow him to comment on, and improve, the situation, to ensure that such failures are not repeated in future, and that children in Wales are not adversely affected in any way by breakdowns in administration.

Julie Morgan: On amendment No. 10, it is important not to underestimate the power of secondary legislation, and the powers that the Assembly has at the moment. Yesterday, in the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, it was made clear that, although consultation continues, community health councils will not be abolished in Wales. School league tables and tests are also being reviewed, and Wales may dispense with that form of assessment. It is important to remember that, under the Bill, the commissioner has the power to comment on huge areas.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) mentioned, specific parts of primary legislation are different in Wales. For example, the amendment to the Care Standards Act 2000, which created the post of commissioner, was specifically different, and my hon. Friend the Members for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned education. 
 I am glad to be among those who support amendment No. 45. It is the key to the impetus that produced the commissioner. The Waterhouse report showed that the failure of many different bodies to act resulted in what was already a tragedy becoming a much worse tragedy. Schedule 2B, which applies to persons whose arrangements are subject to review by the commissioner under section 73, refers to the Assembly, any county or county borough council and any health authority—all the bodies that have been responsible for looking after children who have been in terrible situations about which we all know. It would be good if the Minister would clarify whether the commissioner has the power in the existing legislation to consider any omission by the Assembly.

David Hanson: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that I will be able to reassure hon. Members with regard to the Government's intentions on the issues that they have raised. Clause 3(1) will allow the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the Assembly's exercise of its functions. Clause 3(1) inserts new section 72B into the Care Standards Act 2000, which covers the points made in relation to amendment No. 45. The commissioner will have a similar power to review the exercise of functions by the wide range of bodies listed in schedule 2A. The points have been well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North, and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and the Government are confident that the Bill as drafted will meet the intentions of amendment No. 45.
 I hope that the Committee will forgive me if what I say sounds somewhat legalistic; that is not my intention, but it is worth explaining the point by means of an example. The Assembly has strong powers to issue directions; in any given case, the Assembly must decide whether to use that power and, after taking into account the facts of the case, the Assembly might, quite properly, decide not to issue a direction. That would not be a failure to exercise its functions, but would simply be a case of the Assembly having taken a conscious decision not to exercise that function. In that case, the commissioner would be able to review the Assembly's decision not to issue a direction. Similarly, if the Assembly failed to exercise its powers under the Bill, I believe that the commissioner would have the power to say, ``You, the Assembly, have a particular power. You have not chosen to exercise that power. I reserve the right to review your responsibilities in that area.'' 
 I hope that hon. Members will accept that the commissioner's review power will cover cases in which the Assembly and bodies responsible to the Assembly decide not to take action. That should address the points of concern about some of the circumstances surrounding the Waterhouse report in its original format. Many of those issues related to the failure of public bodies to act in any given circumstance. I believe that the Bill as drafted will meet the concerns of hon. Members. The failure to act is covered by the fact that the commissioner can review, as it states in the Bill, 
the exercise or proposed exercise by the Assembly of any function, including the making or proposed making of any subordinate legislation. 
I hope that that satisfies hon. Members, but I would be willing to hear other concerns if they want to press the matter further. I believe that amendment No. 45 comes within the spirit of what the Government are doing and that would not add to the Bill, despite dealing with an area of concern. 
 With amendment No. 10, to which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley spoke, we are in familiar territory, as our discussions this morning and on Tuesday dealt with similar issues. The commissioner may be called upon at any time to comment on particular issues, and he must exercise his judgment as to how he responds to those issues. I tried to tease out from the hon. Gentleman whether he felt that highly charged political issues should fall within the remit of the commissioner, and I believe that we have reached an agreement, now on the record, that it is inappropriate for the commissioner to comment on such issues. 
 In relation to secondary legislation, I refer to the core function issues that we discussed earlier. The provisions of clause 3 supply a clear route for the commissioner to review the effects on children of secondary legislation such as the Assembly can bring forward. There will be occasions on which primary legislation provides a framework: the Care Standards Act 2000 is one example of primary legislation passed by the House forming the framework, but the secondary legislation—the implementation of the Act—being a matter for the Assembly. In that case, the commissioner has a duty to comment upon the impact of that secondary legislation and the Assembly's involvement in it. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said—he covered the point well—the commissioner will be involved in many areas of secondary legislation that have an impact on children in Wales. He will examine the National Assembly's exercise of that function—indeed, he has a duty to examine it. As for primary legislation, the commissioner has no formal role. I believe that that is right: primary legislation is a matter for this House. We risk straying into political comment about significantly controversial matters. 
 My comments on many of the amendments are in the same tenor as previous debates. If the commissioner considered that he should comment on proposals or legislation that had a bearing on his functions as a Children's Commissioner, given the passing of the Bill in both Houses in due course, he would be free to make representations to the National Assembly on such matters. Last year's Care Standards Act 2000 provides an example of the commissioner's role in respect of primary legislation. In theory, the commissioner could, via the Assembly, comment on the secondary elements of that primary legislation and make some general comments about the overall tenor of the Bill. However that would have to be done within the framework of the Children's Commissioner considering his functions—again, we come back to core functions—the role of the Assembly and the impact of secondary legislation on his role. 
 I am confident that the Assembly would seriously consider any comments that the commissioner might make in respect of the Assembly's response in considering that legislation under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act. Part of my daily role is to discuss with Assembly Ministers and Members current and potentially forthcoming legislation in this House. Therefore, there would be a framework that allowed the commissioner to address such matters, and I am sure the Assembly would occasionally ask the Children's Commissioner for his view. 
 I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. Paedophile policy, swimming and the youth opportunities fund are all issues that the Assembly may examine; at certain times, it may ask or be asked for a view. There may be issues on which the commissioner wants to comment, but he should do so within the structure of his functions, his role and the Assembly's responsibilities. 
 I was also struck by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West. She asked a very valid question: do we see the role of the Children's Commissioner as that of a regional lobbyist on UK policy issues that are to be determined by the UK Government. We need to think very carefully before we expand the role to cover issues that would then create potentially difficult policy issues in respect of on non-devolved matters across the UK. The points made by my hon. Friend are well worth considering in the context of the amendments. 
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned race relations. There is an independent race relations commission to deal with such matters, and it will deal with the impact of race relation issues on children as well as a range of other individuals. The Commission for Racial Equality is in place and it would not be appropriate for the Children's Commissioner to undertake and duplicate the role of other commissioners. Again, those aspects must be taken into account. 
 The new opportunities fund is the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Although the Assembly is consulted and has the ability to propose different directions, new opportunities fund activity in Wales is a matter for that Department. I accept that the Assembly will want to comment on many related issues, but the Children's Commissioner should be looking at his core functions and dealing with those matters accordingly. 
 Finally, mention has been made of the budget for the Children's Commissioner and the £800,000 that is there. I can assure the Committee that the First Secretary for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has undertaken that the funding of the commissioner will be reviewed after the first year, in the light of experience. That is not a commitment to increase the budget, but a commitment to review the issue in due course. I hope that those points are helpful, that hon. Members will reflect on my comments and that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Livsey: I should like to make a couple of further points about the amendments. On amendment No. 45, avoiding failures is especially important. I am worried about whether the commissioner will be involved in making appointments in the regulatory framework for fulfilling responsibilities for children in Wales. It was enlightening to learn that the Assembly had involved children in the selection of the Children's Commissioner. That bodes well, because the Assembly has shown an enlightened approach to involving children.
 Clearly, the commissioner will have views on appointments. I believe that it is within the Assembly's purview to involve him in those facets of the management system in relation to children, but I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. The Assembly has an enlightened view in that respect. I have particularly in mind, appointments to the inspectorate, which will carry out its functions in relation to local authorities. 
 On amendment No. 10, and Assembly secondary legislation, it was necessary to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner, and the only way of doing so was to introduce the Bill in the House. We are discussing a limited aspect, but it will crop up from time to time. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North has said, other Bills will affect Wales. The Minister for the Environment is, rightly, worried about regional administration. Now that we have devolution in Wales, some aspects of primary legislation that are specific to Wales will arise on which the Children's Commissioner should have a view, and I am sure that the Assembly will direct him in that respect.

David Hanson: I shall try to explain the position of secondary, as opposed to primary, legislation. The commissioner will have the power, but not a duty, to review the effect of Assembly secondary legislation on children. On some occasions, Bills will come before the House that introduce primary legislation powers that confer on the Assembly secondary legislation powers for their implementation. The commissioner will have a prime role in discussing such matters with the Assembly and, like the Assembly, in feeding to the Government comments about primary legislation issues.
 Given the core function nature of the commissioner's role as we envisage it, I hope that that meets hon. Members' anxieties in relation to amendment No. 10. The commissioner will be able to comment on issues that he will have a role in implementing during their consideration. I hope that that makes the position clear. 
 The hon. Gentleman also mentioned appointments. It is important for the commissioner to give advice on involving children in appointments to Assembly positions if required or requested to do so—indeed, he may make suggestions regarding the policy implications. It is not necessarily set down by Assembly policy nor on the face of the Bill, but if the Assembly required him to do that, I am sure he could consider involvement in that role. 
 I hope that I have clarified the Government's intentions regarding the functions in respect of primary legislation and answered the valid points made by hon. Members in connection with amendment No. 45. I repeat my wish that the amendment be withdrawn.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for the information on the budget review: after 12 months, it may be that we do not know what the core functions of the Children's Commissioner are, nor whether he would be able to deliver them effectively within the budget. Much research has been done into the budgets of other commissioners and ombudsmen around the world, and I suspect the budget has been based on that. We shall see. I note the Minister's comment that the budget might be insufficient and that more money might follow, albeit that will not be done automatically. The Welsh Assembly may consider getting extra funding by reducing the building costs and transferring the money saved to the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

David Hanson: To clarify, I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West had given a commitment to review the funding of the Children's Commissioner at the end of the first year of office. There is no commitment to increase or reduce funding on that basis. There is a commitment to review, and as the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am not in a position to determine detailed aspects of the Assembly's budget; the Government are involved only in the total block grant.

Nigel Evans: I thought that that is what I said.

David Hanson: I was just making sure.

Nigel Evans: I thought that is what I said. I will not restate my comments about the Welsh Assembly—but it is a nice dig none the less.
 With regard to race relations, I heard what the Minister said about there being a commissioner available. I know that Nick Bourne, the leader of the Conservatives on the Welsh Assembly, has already referred Seimon Glyn case to the race relations commissioner. There may be distinct aspects of discrimination that the children's commissioner might care to consider. 
 I accept what the Minister said about primary legislation. We do not want the role of the Children's Commissioner to become sidetracked by headline-grabbing, highly charged political issues, which will neither enhance his role nor clarify the issues. That was never the intention of amendment No. 10. Perhaps, in view of the assurances that he has given, the amendment will be reconsidered in another place. 
 With primary legislative powers, the Secretary of State may be able to enhance the duty and obligation at least to consult the commissioner on primary legislation that deals with children, while at the same time excluding him from other areas. However, it will be up to our colleagues in another place to consider that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 23, after `Assembly,' insert
`, with the consent of the Secretary of State'.

Bowen Wells: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
 `(2A) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an order to amend this section or Schedule 2A by— 
 (a) adding any person to that Schedule; 
 (b) omitting any person from that Schedule; 
 (c) altering the description of any person mentioned in that Schedule; or 
 (d) making provision specifying, in respect of a person mentioned in that Schedule and specified in the order, a function of the person which although exercisable in relation to Wales is not to be treated as such for the purpose of subsection (1)(b).'.
 No. 13, in page 2, line 34, after `(2)', insert `or (2A)'. 
 No. 16, in Clause 4, page 4, line 35, after `Assembly', insert 
`, with the consent of the Secretary of State'.
 No. 30, in Clause 4, page 4, line 45, at end insert— 
 `(5AA) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an order to amend this section or Schedule 2B by— 
 (e) adding any person to that Schedule; 
 (f) omitting any person from that Schedule; 
 (g) altering the description of any person mentioned in that Schedule; or 
 (h) making provision specifying, in respect of a person mentioned in that Schedule and specified in the order, services which although provided by the person are not to be treated as such for the purposes of the exercise of the Commissioner's functions.'.
 No 31, in Clause 4, page 5, line 1, after `(5A)', insert `or (5AA)'.

Robert Walter: I might call this group of amendments empowerment amendments, as they go some way towards answering some of the points that were made in the preceding debate, especially in connection with secondary legislation, as well as some of the points that we made earlier in the Committee. Our aim is to repair some of the deficiencies in the legislation by bringing the Secretary of State into play to enhance the Assembly's power to consider non-devolved matters and cross-border matters. We also want to enable the Secretary of State, acting alone, to bring orders before this House with regard to a number of non-devolved matters.
 I said earlier that the principal concern that I have with this Bill is that it covers bodies in Wales which are subject to the National Assembly for Wales. There is no way, however, that child abuse or children's rights are challenged only in bodies that are subject to devolution to the National Assembly. Incidents of child abuse and neglect of children's rights can take place right across the whole gamut of public bodies. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to bring into the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to become involved in bringing forward secondary legislation that can add to the list of bodies that the Children's Commissioner can deal with. 
 I do not want to labour the point as the Committee has before it a number of amendments that would extend the schedule of bodies that can be covered, but I will allude to that in my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley asked whether or not the commissioner would have views on the Child Support Agency. I would broaden that query to include the Benefits Agency and the Inland Revenue, booth of which are concerned with the welfare of children. It seems illogical to me that the Children's Commissioner should be precluded from getting involved in the policy of those bodies where they affect children in Wales. To extend beyond those, one could talk about the Department for National Savings, the Charity Commission, the office of the National Lottery and so on, all of which are non-devolved areas which, none the less, the House, through secondary legislation, could add to this Bill if our amendments were accepted. 
 More important than any of those are the activities in Wales of the police authorities, the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and of the Youth Justice Board. These are important because when we look at the Bill in its present construction, it covers social services departments of local authorities in Wales which would be responsible for children in care, in residential homes and in foster care. I do not believe that those forms of care are much different from being held in custody either in a police station pending charges or in a young offenders institution. It is illogical to say that it is acceptable for the Children's Commissioner to look at the functions of local authorities, but unacceptable for him to look at the functions of the Prison Service or police authority. 
 The schedules to the Bill set out a whole host of bodies that the Children's Commissioner will start to look at, for example, the Welsh Language Board, the Arts Council of Wales, the National Library of Wales, the National Museums and Galleries of Wales and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. The commissioner is precluded, however, from commenting on the BBC in Wales, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority or, more particularly, Sianel Pedwar Cymru, which one would have thought was a Welsh body in which the commissioner might definitely want to have some involvement, if he is having a say on the Welsh Language Board, the Arts Council and the National Library. It seems to me that simply because S4C is administered by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, that the commissioner is somehow being excluded from expressing an effective opinion on the policy of that body. We have already mentioned that the commissioner has no power over youth bodies, such as the Army Cadet Corps, the Air Training Service and the Combined Cadet Force, whereas he will have power over youth clubs that are under the supervision of local education authorities, and over youth facilities that would come within the remit of the Wales Tourist Board. We discussed the Commission for Racial Equality at length under the previous group of amendments, so I shall not rehearse the arguments again. The schedule refers to the agricultural wages committee, and I see the logic of that; children are employed in agriculture. However, the commissioner's remit does not extend to the Employment Service or to the Health and Safety Executive, which are also bodies concerned with the employment of children in Wales. 
 Amendment No. 11 seeks to suggest that the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, can, by order, amend the clause or schedule 2A by adding any person to that schedule, and so on. More particularly, amendment No. 12 seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to lay before Parliament an order to amend the clause or schedule 2A by similarly adding any person to that schedule, or omitting any person from that schedule. I shall not read them out. The important point is that we seek to empower the Secretary of State.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument is contradictory? In adding the list of non-devolved matters to the schedules, he is extending the role of devolution, but by requiring the consent of the Secretary of State, he is restricting the role of the Assembly.

Robert Walter: I hear what the hon. Lady says. The reason for putting that in is so that the situation does not arise where the Assembly and the Secretary of State operate independently of each other. We are trying to use the Secretary of State as a clearing house for the commissioner. We in no way seek to extend devolution. The whole purpose of a clause which says that the Secretary of State may lay orders before Parliament with regard to the non-devolved bodies is clearly to say that those powers still rest with this place and with the Secretary of State who sits in the Cabinet here at Westminster, and that we are not giving the National Assembly for Wales powers over those non-devolved bodies. What we are suggesting is that, in a national context, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, because he exists for the geographical area of Wales, should have some remit over those bodies. We are not actually giving powers to the Assembly itself to have remit over them. It would be quite logical that the Children's Commissioner should in due course make a report to Parliament as well as to the National Assembly, and we have an amendment later to that effect. The thrust of amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 30 and 31, which repeat themselves as they go on to amend subsequent clauses, is to empower the Secretary of State, as I have suggested, possibly to act as a clearing house, or as an executive member of the Government in this place, to bring those non-devolved bodies within the remit of the Children's Commissioner. It is logical, if we believe in the Children's Commissioner's role, that his remit should extend over all public bodies, not be limited—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till Tuesday 30 January at half-past Ten o'clock.